[PASSED] Promotion of Clean Energy

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC: I could very well say in Good Faith that I can not setup any new energy infrastructure, due to a [Physical|Fiscal|Moral|Ethical|Religious|Ideological] reason and thus be in compliance as well according to the wording.

OOC: Not really Your reason would have to be something insurmountable given a good faith effort. Courts don't require a party under duty to act in good faith to act without regard to cost, but at the same time it's not carta blanch to act as one pleases. Though practically speaking you can say anything to get out of any resolution, regardless of wording. We don't have a police force to investigate your claims or courts to call you out on them, even the security council doesn't touch this stuff, and even if they did all they can do is send you a strongly worded letter and a sticker. The most you're likely to lose by flouting regulation is the respect of your fellow delegates.(if any)

A strong regulation, one that in my opinion would promote 'Clean' Energy, would not include bona fides as a determining factor in compliance but would have set stricter regulatory milestones for countries, including regulations upon fossil fuels from day one

Impractical. We have some nations that have antimatter reactors and others that still use horse drawn carriages. (I myself have a puppet that consists of nothing but several cows in a field). From the point of view of a nation that uses draft animals for power petroleum is a environmental godsend, but for a nation with fusion it's a step backwards(we hope). You can't use a one size fits all solution with this, it's even less applicable here then in the real world.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I could very well say in Good Faith that I can not setup any new energy infrastructure, due to a [Physical|Fiscal|Moral|Ethical|Religious|Ideological] reason and thus be in compliance as well according to the wording.

OOC: Not really Your reason would have to be something insurmountable given a good faith effort. Courts don't require a party under duty to act in good faith to act without regard to cost, but at the same time it's not carta blanch to act as one pleases. Though practically speaking you can say anything to get out of any resolution, regardless of wording. We don't have a police force to investigate your claims or courts to call you out on them, even the security council doesn't touch this stuff, and even if they did all they can do is send you a strongly worded letter and a sticker. The most you're likely to lose by flouting regulation is the respect of your fellow delegates.(if any)

OOC: there's really nobody to say that a minor holdup isn't enough to overcome a good faith effort. There is no supranational judiciary to make that determination.

[Borosa Ete Whitedemonicaa]

Snip

OOC: I never actually suggested a one-size fits all resolution, but I also never ruled out the promotion of clean energy. If you consider it, a horse drawn carriage, while not particularly efficient mode of transport in comparison to my own nation's Dark Matter Gravity Manipulation (DMGM) Drives and Pinch Drives, is a very clean method of moving goods and people. The 'engine' has been designed by nature and fed by nature from renewable sources. The waste product can be collected and broken down with some pretty basic chemistry or through 100% natural means such as composting into fertilizer that is then used to grow the feed for the horses and even the humans. Yes, this bill is a good step forward and yes this bill may prove to have some worth to nations that just needed a push in the right direction to clean energy, myself and the some of the others in Coldbay feel it lacks the... Definitions of clean energy required. In the instance of the horse if we break down how we make the feed you can see it clearly takes vast swaths of land to grow the feed, this destroys the habitats of other animals.

Let's call the horse the engine and the feed the fuel, to produce the fuel for the engine puts a strain on the environment, not through carbon emissions but through clear cutting of forest to make room for fields. My nation would in IC consider the clear cutting of fields for the production of fuel for these engines as non-clean. More appropriately it would be the Non-Green solution to a Semi-Green energy production method for a Green engine. IC I was appalled by the lack of truly green protections and concerned for the economic states of the smaller countries in mine and other regions. My nation considers Geothermal, Tidal, Fusion, and any power generation method that requires a small foot print (with the exception of tidal because a well built tidal plant will blend with the environment) and whose fuel would not pose any environmental impacts in the end of the cycle as Clean. Miles of solar panels with massive land disturbances and ground habitat destruction, wind turbines that kill huge numbers of predatory birds and bats, dams backing up and drying up rivers and killing fish, and nuclear with its end of cycle dangerous waste product as all non-clean and non-green energy solutions. Also I'm just playing my WA Ambassador IC, he's young and doesn't attack things head on, but his father will and I have a written statement from the Emperor I prepared last night to better address the issues Borosa has with the bill and how creating a bill for clean energy with better environmental protections and defining at what technological state a country should be scrutinized for not having already begun shifting to, or researching deployment of Clean Green energies, and imploring the creation of a committee that could help smaller countries finance green energy solutions from larger countries that have them giving these smaller less advanced countries a break in the long run against irreparable environmental destruction.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let me say that though I am a fan of numbered clauses, the simplicity of formatting this for the forum thread (RexisQuexis! :D) is fantastic.

[Araraukar]

Let me say that though I am a fan of numbered clauses, the simplicity of formatting this for the forum thread (RexisQuexis! ) is fantastic.

OOC: I'll remind you of this the next time you demand numbers!

[Wallenburg]

After much deliberation among and between the National Assemblies of the Republics of Wallenburg, the resolution at vote has been found inadequate and sloppy, and the General Council has cast its vote in opposition.

Let this not serve as any indication that Wallenburg, whether as a state or as a people, harbors disdain for efforts to protect the environment or champion cleaner methods of production. Many delegates to the National Assemblies have publicly fought for the regulation of industry in favor of public and environmental health. Many of these same delegates, ardent supporters of "renewable" energy and its growth in the energy industry, have stood in firm opposition to this resolution. They do not dislike it because its provisions are too radical, but because they believe that this resolution does not go far enough in promoting alternatives to the most unhealthy sources of electrical energy. With all but one active clause optional, and the one requirement of member states neutered by several highly subjective phrases such as a "good faith effort", this resolution simply does not satisfy the expectations of environmental protectionists. This issue grows even more pressing after considering the limitations set on future environmental proposals due to the implementation of the General Assembly standards regarding contradiction and duplication.

In addition, the resolution stumbles miserably in its preamble, claiming that "alternate forms of energy, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro" are almost all available options and "clean, renewable, and cost-effective in the long-run". This clause conflates energy sources with methods of exploiting these sources. Furthermore, and as demonstrated during debate on this bill, neither these energy sources nor common methods of exploiting them are entirely "clean" or "renewable". Lastly, the inclusion of the prefix "hydro" greatly confuses our legislators, who are not familiar with the slang of foreign cultures, and its presence taints this resolution with a component of informality unbecoming of international law. For these reasons the Republics of Wallenburg stand against this resolution and plan to support a swift repeal, in order to make room for a more assertive environmental mandate.

Margaret G-K Keegan
MAJORITY LEADER

[Bears Armed]

For most nations the resolution category Environmental: All Businesses has a larger cumulative effect on the various industries located within each nation. However, the impact upon each individual industry is actually smaller than a resolution targeted at one specific industry. (i.e. Environmental: Automotive has a larger impact on the Automotive industry when compared to an Environmental: All Businesses resolution) As such, resolutions within the Environmental: All Businesses category can be written in such a way that it impacts all businesses in a more mild way, as it is the scope of the resolution that is what matters within this category.

Previous Secretariat rulings that contradict this Information, namely that Environmental: All Businesses must be written in strong or significant language, should be discharged and no longer considered to be in force.

OOC: So, henceforth, an 'Environmental: All Businesses' resolution that urges member nations to do 'X' is to be treated, as far as the Mods and stat effects are concerned, as effectively equivalent in strength to an 'Environmental: All Businesses' resolution that requires member nations to do 'X' and 'Y''?

[Mallorea and Riva]

For most nations the resolution category Environmental: All Businesses has a larger cumulative effect on the various industries located within each nation. However, the impact upon each individual industry is actually smaller than a resolution targeted at one specific industry. (i.e. Environmental: Automotive has a larger impact on the Automotive industry when compared to an Environmental: All Businesses resolution) As such, resolutions within the Environmental: All Businesses category can be written in such a way that it impacts all businesses in a more mild way, as it is the scope of the resolution that is what matters within this category.

Previous Secretariat rulings that contradict this Information, namely that Environmental: All Businesses must be written in strong or significant language, should be discharged and no longer considered to be in force.

OOC: So, henceforth, an 'Environmental: All Businesses' resolution that urges member nations to do 'X' is to be treated, as far as the Mods and stat effects are concerned, as effectively equivalent in strength to an 'Environmental: All Businesses' resolution that requires member nations to do 'X' and 'Y''?

I think I understand what you're asking. The problem is that the stats don't allow for such distinctions to be made.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let me say that though I am a fan of numbered clauses, the simplicity of formatting this for the forum thread (RexisQuexis! :D) is fantastic.

OOC: I'll remind you of this the next time you demand numbers! :p

OOC: Numbered clauses are still better! Easier to reference!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We have cast our vote AGAINST. The resolution has only one operative clause that's stronger than a 'pretty please the WA encourages you...' statement, and that one barely does anything. A 'good faith effort' might well be sustained by appointing a fact-finding committee and telling them to recommend steps to the legislature. And requiring only those forms of energy that are now efficient has two problems: first, it opens the door to say 'Hey, we'd love to use clean energy, but wind power just isn't as efficient for our economy as coal is;' and second, it removes any incentive to improve the efficiency of cleaner energy production. In short, this is very close to useless."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We have cast our vote AGAINST. The resolution has only one operative clause that's stronger than a 'pretty please the WA encourages you...' statement, and that one barely does anything. A 'good faith effort' might well be sustained by appointing a fact-finding committee and telling them to recommend steps to the legislature. And requiring only those forms of energy that are now efficient has two problems: first, it opens the door to say 'Hey, we'd love to use clean energy, but wind power just isn't as efficient for our economy as coal is;' and second, it removes any incentive to improve the efficiency of cleaner energy production. In short, this is very close to useless."

Parsons: That is, in fact, why we support this so strongly.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Parsons: That is, in fact, why we support this so strongly.

"And I suspect you're far from alone."

[The Holy Order of Polonia]

"The Holy Order of Polonia has voted against this resolution.
The intentions of the resolution may appear noble, however there are too many flaws with the proposal:
1. The resolution uses statements that bear no real legislative weight for the Member States. Terms like "to urge", "emplore" and "encourage" do not equate "to oblige" and this fact therefore makes the document easily dismissable.
2. Many states use fossil fuels for energy production because those are still more efficient than sources of "clean energy". This state of matter will not change until the systems of alternate forms of energy become as affordable and efficient per unit of energy as conventional sources are. Not many nations can afford higher energy expenses for the sake of cleaner environment.
3. Most of the clean energy sources (solar, hydro, wind, tidal, geothermal) are able to supply small enterprises and small settlements that are fairly scattered across the land. However, the biggest energy demand comes from big cities and industrial plants. Renewable energy farms would take up too much area in their current state if they alone were to supply urban or industrial areas, creating a threat to environment themselves.

Despite the aforementioned objections, The Holy Order of Polonia is actively researching and developing more efficient solar technologies which is the most fitting choice of all known forms of alternative energy for the geographical and climatic conditions of the state."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I READ RESOLUTIONS

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade
Friar Cadfail, OFM Friar Superior
Mother Angelica, OSC Secretary and official Reader

I have read the resolution. Brother Maynard has a minor nit pick. He asks, "How can geothermal energy be 'renewable?'" I mean you can't really renew the energy in the earth, once it's depleted, it's over.

For the record, I gave him a cookie. That cookie isn't renewable either.

He also objected to the notion of "dis-incentivize" ... even though the Catholic Church has been trying to dis-incentivize sinful behavior for centuries. Mind you it hasn't had any real effect, has it?

Fortunately Friar John has the final say on the vote and he always does what I tell him to do. (Isn't that right, Friar John?) That's only because if he doesn't, I tell Friar Cadfail about it.

Therefore we vote AYE.

P.S. Poor Brother Maynard has eaten his non renewable cookie.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise to vote Yes on this resolution. Although we have some misgivings on it, the vote in Anime is overwhelmingly in favor.

[Vancouvia]

Promotion of Clean Energy was passed 11,743 votes to 3,897.

[Paffnia]

A bit late, but the opinion of the 10000 Islands was FOR this resolution, and I voted accordingly. Congrats!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Promotion of Clean Energy was passed 11,743 votes to 3,897.

Parsons: Quite late, but I would like to congratulate our friends in Vancouvia for their successful run. I hope that this one lasts longer than those other substantial resolutions they have passed. (OOC: substantial resolutions means 'those resolutions which are not repeals')